Of Confession and Satisfaction

1] Good men can easily judge that it is of the greatest importance that the true doctrine concerning the

above-mentioned parts, namely contrition and faith, be preserved. [For the great fraud of indulgences,

etc., and the preposterous doctrines of the sophists have sufficiently taught us what great vexation and

danger arise therefrom if a foul stroke is here made. How many a godly conscience under the Papacy

sought with great labor the true way, and in the midst, of such darkness did not find it!] Therefore, we

have always been occupied more with the elucidation of these topics, and have disputed nothing as yet

concerning confession and satisfaction. 2] For we also retain confession, especially on account of the

absolution, as being the word of God which, by divine authority, the power of the keys pronounces upon

individuals. 3] Therefore it would be wicked to remove private absolution from the Church. 4] Neither do

they understand what the remission of sins or the power of the keys is, if there are any who despise

private absolution. 5] But in reference to the enumeration of offenses in confession, we have said above

that we hold that it is not 6] necessary by divine right. For the objection, made by some, that a judge

ought to investigate a case before he pronounces upon it, pertains in no way to this subject; because the

ministry of absolution is favor or grace, it is not a legal process, or law. [For God is the Judge, who has

committed to the apostles, not the office of judges, but the administration of grace, namely, to acquit

those who desire, etc.] Therefore ministers in the Church have the command to remit sin; they have not

the command to investigate secret 8] sins. And indeed, they absolve from those that we do not remember;

for which reason absolution, which is the voice of the Gospel remitting sins and consoling consciences,

does not require judicial examination.

9] And it is ridiculous to transfer hither the saying of Solomon, Prov. 27, 23: Be thou diligent to know the

state of thy flocks. For Solomon says nothing of confession, but gives to the father of a family a domestic

precept, that he should use what is his own, and abstain from what is another’s; and he commands him to

take care of his own property diligently, yet in such a way that, with his mind occupied with the increase

of his resources, he should not cast away the fear of God, or faith or care in God’s Word. But our

adversaries, by a wonderful metamorphosis, transform passages of Scripture to whatever meaning they

please. [They produce from the Scriptures black and white, as they please, contrary to the natural

meaning of the clear words.] Here to know signifies with them to hear confessions, the state, not the

outward life, but the secrets of conscience; and the flocks signify men. [Stable, we think, means a school

within which there are such doctors and orators. But it has happened aright to those who thus despise the

Holy Scriptures and all fine arts that they make gross mistakes in grammar.] The interpretation is

assuredly neat, and is worthy of these despisers of the pursuits of eloquence. But if any one desires by a

similitude to transfer a precept from a father of a family to a pastor of a Church, he ought certainly to

interpret “state” [V. vultus, countenance] as applying to the outward life. This similitude will be more

consistent.

10] But let us omit such matters as these. At different times in the Psalms mention is made of confession,

as, Ps. 32, 5: I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my

sin. Such confession of sin which is made to God is contrition itself. For when confession is made to

God, it must be made with the heart, not alone with the voice, as is made on the stage by actors.

Therefore, such confession is contrition, in which, feeling God’s wrath, we confess that God is justly

angry, and that He cannot be appeased by our works, and, nevertheless, we seek for mercy because of

God’s promise. 11] Such is the following confession, Ps. 51, 4: Against Thee only have I sinned, that

Thou mightest be justified, and be clear when Thou judgest, i.e., “I confess that I am a sinner, and have

merited eternal wrath, nor can I set my righteousnesses, my merits, against Thy wrath; accordingly, I

declare that Thou art just when Thou condemnest and punishest us; I declare that Thou art clear when

hypocrites judge Thee to be unjust in punishing them or in condemning the well-deserving. Yea, our

merits cannot be opposed to Thy judgment; but we shall thus be justified, namely, if Thou justifiest us, if

through Thy mercy Thou accountest us righteous.” 12] Perhaps some one may also cite Jas. 5, 16:

Confess your faults one to another. But here the reference is not to confession that is to be made to the

priests, but, in general, concerning the reconciliation of brethren to each other. For it commands that the

confession be mutual.

13] Again, our adversaries will condemn many most generally received teachers if they will contend that

in confession an enumeration of offenses is necessary according to divine Law. For although we approve

of confession, and judge that some examination is of advantage, in order that men may be the better

instructed [young and inexperienced persons be questioned], yet the matter must be so controlled that

snares are not cast upon consciences, which never will be tranquil if they think that they cannot obtain

the remission of sins, unless this precise enumeration be made. 14] That which the adversaries have

expressed in the Confutation is certainly most false, namely, that a full confession is necessary for

salvation. For this is impossible. And what snares they here cast upon the conscience when they require a

full confession! For when will conscience be sure that the confession is complete? 15] In the

Church-writers mention is made of confession, but they do not speak of this enumeration of secret

offenses, but of the rite of public repentance. For as the fallen or notorious [those guilty of public crimes]

were not received without fixed satisfactions [without a public ceremony or reproof], they made

confession on this account to the presbyters, in order that satisfactions might be prescribed to them

according to the measure of their offenses. This entire matter contained nothing similar to the

enumeration concerning which we are disputing. This confession was made, not because the remission of

sins before God could not occur without it, but because satisfactions could not be prescribed unless the

kind of offense were first known. For different offenses had different canons.

16] And from this rite of public repentance there has been left the word “satisfaction.” For the holy

Fathers were unwilling to receive the fallen or the notorious, unless, as far as it was possible, their

repentance had been first examined into and exhibited publicly. And there seem to have been many

causes for this. For to chastise those who had fallen served as an example, just as also the gloss upon the

decrees admonishes, and it was improper immediately to admit notorious men to the communion

[without their being tested]. These customs have long since grown obsolete. Neither is it necessary to

restore them, because they are not necessary for the remission of sins before God. 17] Neither did the

Fathers hold this, namely, that men merit the remission of sins through such customs or such works,

although these spectacles (such outward ceremonies] usually lead astray the ignorant to think that by

these works they merit the remission of sins before God. But if any one thus holds, he holds to the faith

of a Jew and heathen. For also the heathen had certain expiations for offenses through which they

imagined 18] to be reconciled to God. Now, however, although the custom has become obsolete, the

name satisfaction still remains, and a trace of the custom also remains of prescribing in confession

certain satisfactions, which they define as works that are not due. We call them canonical satisfactions.

19] Of these we hold, just as of the enumeration, that canonical satisfactions (these public ceremonies]

are not necessary by divine Law for the remission of sins; just as those ancient exhibitions of

satisfactions in public repentance were not necessary by divine Law for the remission of sins. For the

belief concerning faith must be retained, that by faith we obtain remission of sins for Christ’s sake, and

not for the sake of our works that precede or follow [when we are converted or born anew in Christ]. And

for this reason we have discussed especially the question of satisfactions, that by submitting to them the

righteousness of faith be not obscured, or men think that for the sake of these works they obtain

remission of sins. 20] And many sayings that are current in the schools aid the error, such as that which

they give in the definition of satisfaction, namely, that it is wrought for the purpose of appeasing the

divine displeasure.

21] But, nevertheless, the adversaries acknowledge that satisfactions are of no profit for the remission of

guilt. Yet they imagine that satisfactions are of profit in redeeming from the punishments, whether of

purgatory or other punishments. For thus they teach that in the remission of sins, God [without means,

alone] remits the guilt, and yet, because it belongs to divine justice to punish sin, that He commutes

eternal into temporal punishment. They add further that a part of this temporal punishment is remitted by

the power of the keys, but that the rest is redeemed by means of satisfactions. Neither can it be

understood of what punishments a part is remitted by the power of the keys, unless they say that a part of

the punishments of purgatory is remitted, from which it would follow that satisfactions are only

punishments redeeming from purgatory. And these satisfactions, they say, avail even though they are

rendered by those who have relapsed into mortal sin, as though indeed the divine displeasure could be

appeased by those who are in mortal sin. 22] This entire matter is fictitious, and recently fabricated

without the authority of Scripture and the old writers of the Church. And not even Longobardus speaks in

this way of satisfactions. 23] The scholastics saw that there were satisfactions in the Church; and they did

not notice that these exhibitions had been instituted both for the purpose of example, and for testing those

who desired to be received by the Church. In a word, they did not see that it was a discipline, and entirely

a secular matter. Accordingly, they superstitiously imagined that these avail not for discipline before the

Church, but for appeasing God. And just as in other places they frequently, with great inaptness, have

confounded spiritual and civil matters [the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual, and the kingdom of the

world, and external discipline], the same happens also with regard to satisfactions. 24] But the gloss on

the canons at various places testifies that these observances were instituted for the sake of church

discipline [should serve alone for an example before the Church].

25] Let us see, moreover, how in the Confutation which they had the presumption to obtrude upon His

Imperial Majesty, they prove these figments of theirs. They cite many passages from the Scriptures, in

order to impose upon the inexperienced, as though this subject which was unknown even in the time of

Longobard, had authority from the Scriptures. They bring forward such passages as these: Bring forth,

therefore, fruits meet for repentance, Matt. 3, 8; Mark 1, 15. Again: Yield your members servants to

righteousness, Rom. 6, 19. Again, Christ preaches repentance, Matt. 4, 17: Repent. Again, Christ Luke

24, 47, commands the apostles to preach repentance, and Peter preaches repentance, Acts 2, 38.

Afterward they cite certain passages of the Fathers and the canons, and conclude that satisfactions in the

Church are not to be abolished contrary to the plain Gospel and the decrees of the Councils and Fathers

[against the decision of the Holy Church]; nay, even that those who have been absolved by the priest

ought to bring to perfection the repentance that has been enjoined, following the declaration of Paul,

Titus 2, 14: Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself

a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

26] May God put to confusion these godless sophists who so wickedly distort God’s Word to their own

most vain dreams! What good man is there who is not moved by such indignity? “Christ says, Repent,

the apostles preach repentance; therefore eternal punishments are compensated by the punishments of

purgatory; therefore the keys have the power to remit part of the punishments of purgatory; therefore

satisfactions redeem the punishments of purgatory”! Who has taught these asses such logic? Yet this is

neither logic nor sophistry, but cunning trickery. Accordingly, they appeal to the expression repent in

such a way that, when the inexperienced hear such a passage cited against us, they may derive the

opinion that we deny the entire repentance. By these arts they endeavor to alienate minds and to enkindle

hatred, so that the inexperienced may cry out against us [Crucify! crucify!], that such pestilent heretics as

disapprove of repentance should he removed from their midst. [Thus they are publicly convicted of being

liars in this matter.]

27] But we hope that among good men these calumnies [and misrepresentations of Holy Scripture] may

make little headway. And God will not long endure such impudence and wickedness. [They will

certainly be consumed by the First and Second Commandments.] Neither has the Pope of Rome

consulted well for his own dignity in employing such patrons, because he has entrusted a matter of the

greatest importance to the judgment of these sophists. For since we include in the Confession almost the

sum of the entire Christian doctrine, judges should have been appointed to make a declaration concerning

matters so important and so many and various, whose learning and faith would have been more approved

than that of these sophists who have written this Confutation. 28] It was particularly becoming for you, O

Campegius, in accordance with your wisdom, to have taken care that in regard to matters of such

importance they should write nothing which either at this time or with posterity might seem to be able to

diminish regard for the Roman See. If the Roman See judges it right that all nations should acknowledge

her as mistress of the faith, she ought to take pains that learned and uncorrupt men make investigation

concerning matters of religion. For what will the world judge if at any time the writing of the adversaries

be brought to light? What will posterity judge concerning these reproachful judicial investigations? 29]

You see, O Campegius, that these are the last times, in which Christ predicted that there would be the

greatest danger to religion. You, therefore, who ought, as it were, to sit on the watch-tower and control

religious matters, should in these times employ unusual wisdom and diligence. There are many signs

which, unless you heed them, threaten a change to the Roman state. 30] And you make a mistake if you

think that Churches should be retained only by force and arms. Men ask to be taught concerning religion.

How many do you suppose there are, not only in Germany, but also in England, in Spain, in France, in

Italy, and finally even in the city of Rome, who, since they see that controversies have arisen concerning

subjects of the greatest importance, are beginning here and there to doubt, and to be silently indignant

that you refuse to investigate and judge aright subjects of such weight as these; that you do not deliver

wavering consciences; that you only bid us be overthrown and annihilated by arms? 31] There are many

good men to whom this doubt is more bitter than death. You do not consider sufficiently how great a

subject religion is, if you think that good men are in anguish for a slight cause whenever they begin to

doubt concerning any dogma. And this doubt can have no other effect than to produce the greatest

bitterness of hatred against those who, when they ought to heal consciences, plant themselves in the way

of the explanation of the subject. 32] We do not here say that you ought to fear God’s judgment. For the

hierarchs think that they can easily provide against this, for since they hold the keys, of course they can

open heaven for themselves whenever they wish. We are speaking of the judgments of men and the silent

desires of all nations, which, indeed, at this time require that these matters be investigated and decided in

such a manner that good minds may be healed and freed from doubt. For, in accordance with your

wisdom, you can easily decide what will take place if at any time this hatred against you should break

forth. But by this favor you will be able to bind to yourself all nations, as all sane men regard it as the

highest and most important matter, if you heal doubting 33] consciences. We have said these things not

because we doubt concerning our Confession. For we know that it is true, godly, and useful to godly

consciences. But it is likely that there are many in many places who waver concerning matters of no light

importance, and yet do not hear such teachers as are able to heal their consciences.

34] But let us return to the main point. The Scriptures cited by the adversaries speak in no way of

canonical satisfactions, and of the opinions of the scholastics, since it is evident that the latter were only

recently born. Therefore it is pure slander when they distort Scripture to their own opinions. We say that

good fruits, good works in every kind of life, ought to follow repentance, i.e., conversion or regeneration

[the renewal of the Holy Ghost in the heart]. Neither can there be true conversion or true contrition where

mortifications of the flesh and good fruits do not follow [if we do not externally render good works and

Christian patience]. True terrors, true griefs of mind, do not allow the body to indulge in sensual

pleasures, and true faith is not ungrateful to God, neither does it despise God’s commandments. 35] In a

word, there is no inner repentance unless it also produces outwardly mortifications of the flesh. We say

also that this is the meaning of John when he says, Matt. 3, 8: Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for

repentance. Likewise of Paul when he says, Rom. 6, 19: Yield your members servants to righteousness;

just as he likewise says elsewhere, Rom. 12, 1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, etc. And when

Christ says, Matt. 4, 17: Repent, He certainly speaks of the entire repentance, of the entire newness of life

and its fruits; He does not speak of those hypocritical satisfactions which, the scholastics imagine, avail

for compensating the punishment of purgatory or other punishments when they are made by those who

are in mortal sin.

36] Many arguments, likewise, can be collected to show that these passages of Scripture pertain in no

way to scholastic satisfactions. These men imagine that satisfactions are works that are not due [which

we are not obliged to do); but Scripture, in these passages, requires works that are due [which we are

obliged to do]. For this word of Christ, 37] Repent, is the word of a commandment. Likewise the

adversaries write that if any one who goes to confession should refuse to undertake satisfactions, he does

not sin, but will pay these penalties in purgatory. Now the following passages are, without controversy,

precepts pertaining to this life: Repent; Bring forth fruits meet for repentance; Yield your members

servants to righteousness. Therefore they cannot be distorted to the satisfactions which it is permitted to

refuse. For to refuse God’s commandments is not permitted. [For God’s commands are not thus left to

our discretion.] 38] Thirdly, indulgences remit these satisfactions, as is taught by the Chapter, De

Poenitentiis et Remissione, beginning Quum ex eo, etc. But indulgences do not free us from the

commandments: Repent; Bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Therefore it is manifest that these

passages of Scripture have been wickedly distorted to apply to canonical satisfactions. 39] See further

what follows. If the punishments of purgatory are satisfactions, or satispassions [sufferings sufficient], or

if satisfactions are a redemption of the punishments of purgatory, do the passages also give

commandment that souls be punished in purgatory? [The above-cited passages of Christ and Paul must

also show and prove that souls enter purgatory and there suffer pain.] Since this must follow from the

opinions of the adversaries, these passages should be interpreted in a new way [these passages should put

on new coats]: Bring forth fruits meet for repentance; Repent, i.e., suffer the punishments of purgatory

after this life. 40] But we do not care about refuting in more words these absurdities of the adversaries.

For it is evident that Scripture speaks of works that are due, of the entire newness, of life, and not of

these observances of works that are not due, of which the adversaries speak. And yet, by these figments

they defend orders [of monks], the sale of Masses and infinite observances, namely, as works which, if

they do not make satisfaction for guilt, yet make satisfaction for punishment.

41] Since, therefore, the passages of Scripture cited do not say that eternal punishments are to be

compensated by works that are not due, the adversaries are rash in affirming that these satisfactions are

compensated by canonical satisfactions. Nor do the keys have the command to commute some

punishments, and likewise to remit a part of the punishments. For where are such things [dreams and

lies] read in the Scriptures? Christ speaks of the remission of sins when He says, Matt. 18, 18:

Whatsoever ye shall loose, etc. [i.e.], sin being forgiven, death eternal is taken away, and life eternal

bestowed. Nor does Whatsoever ye shall bind speak of the imposing of punishments, but of retaining the

sins of those who are not converted. 42] Moreover, the declaration of Longobard concerning remitting a

part of the punishments has been taken from the canonical punishments; a part of these the pastors

remitted. Although, therefore, we hold that repentance ought to bring forth good fruits for the sake of

God’s glory and command, and good fruits, true fastings, true prayers, true alms, etc., have the

commands of God, yet in the Holy Scriptures we nowhere find this, namely, that eternal punishments are

not remitted except on account of the punishment of purgatory or canonical satisfactions, i.e., on account

of certain works not due, or that the power of the keys has the command to commute their punishments

or to remit a portion. These things the adversaries were to prove. [This they will not attempt.]

43] Besides, the death of Christ is a satisfaction not only for guilt, but also for eternal death, according to

Hos. 13, 14: O death, I will be thy death. How monstrous, therefore, it is to say that the satisfaction of

Christ redeemed from the guilt, and our punishments redeem from eternal death; as the expression, I will

be thy death, ought then to be understood, not concerning Christ, but concerning our works, and, indeed,

not concerning the works commanded by God, but concerning some frigid observances devised by men!

And these are said to abolish death, 44] even when they are wrought in mortal sin. It is incredible with

what grief we recite these absurdities of the adversaries, which cannot but cause one who considers them

to be enraged against such doctrines of demons, which the devil has spread in the Church in order to

suppress the knowledge of the Law and Gospel, of repentance and quickening, and the benefits 45] of

Christ. For of the Law they speak thus: “God, condescending to our weakness, has given to man a

measure of those things to which of necessity he is bound; and this is the observance of precepts, so that

from what is left, i.e., from works of supererogation, he can render satisfaction with reference to offenses

that have been committed.” Here men imagine that they can observe the Law of God in such a manner as

to be able to do even more than the Law exacts. But Scripture everywhere exclaims that we are far

distant from the perfection which the Law requires. Yet these men imagine that the Law of God has been

comprised in outward and civil righteousness; they do not see that it requires true love to God “with the

whole heart,” etc., and condemns the entire concupiscence in the nature. Therefore no one does as much

as the Law requires. Hence their imagination that we can do more is ridiculous. For although we can

perform outward works not commanded by God’s Law [which Paul calls beggarly ordinances], yet the

confidence that satisfaction is rendered God’s Law [yea, that more is done than God demands] is vain

and wicked. 46] And true prayers, true alms, true fastings, have God’s command; and where they have

God’s command, they cannot without sin be omitted. But these works, in so far as they have not been

commanded by God’s Law, but have a fixed form derived from human rule, are works of human

traditions of which Christ says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me with the commandments of men,

such as certain fasts appointed not for restraining the flesh, but that, by this work, honor may be given to

God, as Scotus says, and eternal death be made up for; likewise, a fixed number of prayers, a fixed

measure of alms when they are tendered in such a way that this measure is a worship ex opere operato,

giving honor to God, and making up for eternal death. For they ascribe satisfaction to these ex opere

operato, because they teach that they avail even in those who are 47] in mortal sin. There are works

which depart still farther from God’s commands, as [rosaries and] pilgrimages; and of these there is a

great variety: one makes a journey [to St. Jacob] clad in mail, and another with bare feet. Christ calls

these “vain acts of worship,” and hence they do not serve to appease God’s displeasure, as the

adversaries say. And yet they adorn these works with magnificent titles; they call them works of

supererogation; to them the honor is ascribed of being a price paid instead of eternal death. 48] Thus they

are preferred to the works of God’s commandments [the true works expressly mentioned in the Ten

Commandments]. In this way the Law of God is obscured in two ways, one, because satisfaction is

thought to be rendered God’s Law by means of outward and civil works, the other, because human

traditions are added, whose works are preferred to the works of the divine Law.

49] In the second place, repentance and grace are obscured. For eternal death is not atoned for by this

compensation of works, because it is idle, and does not in the present life taste of death. Something else

must be, opposed to death when it tries us. For just as the wrath of God is overcome by faith in Christ, so

death is overcome by faith in, Christ. Just as Paul says, 1 Cor. 15, 57: But thanks be to God which giveth

us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. He does not say: “Who giveth us the victory if we oppose

our satisfactions against death.” 50] The adversaries treat of idle speculations concerning the remission

of guilt, and do not see how, in the remission of guilt, the heart is freed by faith in Christ from God’s

anger and eternal death. Since, therefore, the death of Christ is a satisfaction for eternal death, and since

the adversaries themselves confess that these works of satisfactions are works that are not due, but are

works of human traditions, of which Christ says, Matt. 15, 9, that they are vain acts of worship, we can

safely affirm that canonical satisfactions are not necessary by divine Law for the remission of guilt, or

eternal punishment, or the punishment of purgatory.

51] But the adversaries object that vengeance or punishment is necessary for repentance, because

Augustine says that repentance is vengeance punishing, etc. We grant that vengeance or punishment is

necessary in repentance, yet not as merit or price, as the adversaries imagine that satisfactions are. But

vengeance is in repentance formally, i.e., because regeneration itself occurs by a perpetual mortification

of the oldness of life. The saying of Scotus may indeed be very beautiful, that poenitentia is so called

because it is, as it were, poenae tenentia, holding to punishment. But of what punishment, of what

vengeance, does Augustine speak? Certainly of true punishment, of true vengeance, namely, of

contrition, of true terrors. Nor do we here exclude the outward mortifications of the body, which 52]

follow true grief of mind. The adversaries make a great mistake if they imagine that canonical

satisfactions [their juggler’s tricks, rosaries, pilgrimages, and such like] are more truly punishments than

are true terrors in the heart. It is most foolish to distort the name of punishment to these frigid

satisfactions, and not to refer them to those horrible terrors of conscience of which David says, Ps. 18, 4;

2 Sam. 22, 5: The sorrows of death compassed me. Who would not rather, clad in mail and equipped,

seek the church of James, the basilica of Peter, etc., than bear that ineffable violence of grief which exists

even in persons of ordinary lives, if there be true repentance?

53] But they say that it belongs to God’s justice to punish sin. He certainly punishes it in contrition, when

in these terrors He shows His wrath. Just as David indicates when he prays, Ps. 6, 1: O Lord, rebuke me

not in Thine anger. And Jeremiah, 10, 24: O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in Thine anger,

lest Thou bring me to nothing. Here indeed the most bitter punishments are spoken of. And the

adversaries acknowledge that contrition can be so great that satisfaction is not required. 54] Contrition is

therefore more truly a punishment than is satisfaction. Besides, saints are subject to death, and all general

afflictions, as 1 Peter 4, 17 says: For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and

if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God? And although these

afflictions are for the most part the punishments of sin, yet in the godly they have a better end, namely, to

exercise them, that they may learn amidst trials to seek God’s aid, to acknowledge the distrust of their

own hearts, etc., as Paul says of himself, 2 Cor. 1, 9: But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that

we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead. And Isaiah says, 26, 16: They poured

out prayer when Thy chastening was upon them, i.e., afflictions are a discipline 55] by which God

exercises the saints. Likewise afflictions are inflicted because of present sin, since in the saints they

mortify and extinguish concupiscence, so that they may be renewed by the Spirit, as Paul says, Rom. 8,

10: The body is dead because of sin, i.e., it is mortified [more and more every day] because of present sin

which is still left in the flesh. 56] And death itself serves this purpose, namely, to abolish this flesh of sin,

that we may rise absolutely new. Neither is there now in the death of the believer, since by faith he has

overcome the terrors of death, that sting and sense of wrath of which Paul speaks 1 Cor. 15, 56: The sting

of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the Law. This strength of sin, this sense of wrath, is truly a

punishment as long as it is present; without this sense of wrath, 57] death is not properly a punishment.

Moreover, canonical satisfactions do not belong to these punishments; as the adversaries say that by the

power of the keys a part of the punishments is remitted. Likewise, according to these very men, the keys

remit the satisfactions, and the punishments on account of which the satisfactions are made. But it is

evident that the common afflictions are not removed by the power of the keys. And if they wish to be

understood concerning these punishments, why do they add that satisfaction is to be rendered in

purgatory?

58] They oppose the example of Adam, and also of David, who was punished for his adultery. From

these examples they derive the universal rule that peculiar temporal punishments in the remission of sins

correspond to individual sins. 59] It has been said before that saints suffer punishments, which are works

of God; they suffer contrition or terrors, they also suffer other common afflictions. Thus, for example,

some suffer punishments of their own that have been imposed by God. And these punishments pertain in

no way to the keys, because the keys neither can impose nor remit them, but God, without the ministry of

the keys, imposes and remits them [as He will].

Neither does the universal rule follow: Upon David a peculiar punishment was imposed, therefore, in

addition to common afflictions, there is another punishment of purgatory, in which each degree

corresponds to each sin. 60] Where does Scripture teach that we cannot be freed from eternal death

except by the compensation of certain punishments in addition to common afflictions? But, on the other

hand, it most frequently teaches that the remission of sins occurs freely for Christ’s sake, that Christ is

the Victor of sin and death. Therefore the merit of satisfaction is not to be patched upon this. And

although afflictions still remain, yet Scripture interprets these as the mortifications of present sin [to kill

and humble the old Adam], and not as the compensations of eternal death or as prices for eternal death.

61] Job is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evil deeds; therefore afflictions are not

always punishments or signs of wrath. Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other ends of

afflictions are more important [that they should learn to regard troubles far differently, namely, as signs

of grace], lest they think that they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothing but God’s

punishment and anger. The other more important ends are to be considered, namely, that God is doing

His strange work so that He may be able to do His own work, etc., as Isaiah 28 teaches in a long

discourse. 62] And when the disciples asked concerning the blind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ

replies that the cause of his blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be made manifest in

him. And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whose judgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly

drunken. Thus the prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed. 63] Therefore afflictions

are not always punishments for certain past deeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit,

and that the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness [how He can help in the midst

of death].

Thus Paul says, 2 Cor. 12, 5. 9: The strength of God is made perfect in my weakness. Therefore, because

of God’s will, our bodies ought to be sacrifices, to declare our obedience [and patience], and not to

compensate for eternal death. for which God has another price, namely, 64] the death of His own Son.

And in this sense Gregory interprets even the punishment of David when he says: If God on account of

that sin had threatened that he, would thus be humbled by his son, why, when the sin was forgiven, did

He fulfil that which He had threatened against him? The reply is that this remission was made that man

might not be hindered from receiving eternal life, but that the example of the threatening followed, in

order that the piety of the man might be exercised and tested even in this humility. Thus also God

inflicted upon man death of body on account of sin, and after the remission of sins He did not remove it,

for the sake of exercising justice, namely, in order that the righteousness of those who are sanctified

might be exercised and tested.

65] Nor, indeed, are common calamities [as war, famine, and similar calamities], properly speaking,

removed by these works of canonical satisfactions, i.e., by these works of human traditions, which, they

say, avail ex opere operato, in such a way that, even though they are wrought in mortal sin, 66] yet they

redeem from the punishments. [And the adversaries themselves confess that they impose satisfactions,

not on account of such common calamities, but on account of purgatory; hence, their satisfactions are

pure imaginations and dreams.] And when the passage of Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 31, is cited against us: If we

would judge ourselves, we should not be judged by the Lord [they conclude therefrom that, if we impose

punishment upon ourselves, God will judge us the more graciously], the word to judge ought to be

understood of the entire repentance and due fruits, not of works which are not due. Our adversaries pay

the penalty for despising grammar when they understand to judge to be the same as to make a pilgrimage

clad in mail to the church of St. James, or similar works. To judge signifies the entire repentance; it

signifies to condemn sins. 67] This condemnation truly occurs in contrition and the change of life. The

entire repentance, contrition, faith, the good fruits, obtain the mitigation of public and private

punishments and calamities, as Isaiah 1, 17–19 teaches: Cease to do evil; learn to do well, etc. Though

your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow. If ye be willing and obedient, 68] ye shall eat the

good of the land. Neither should a most important and salutary meaning be transferred from the entire

repentance, and from works due or commanded by God, to the satisfactions and works of human

traditions. And this it is profitable to teach, that common evils are mitigated by our repentance and by the

true fruits of repentance, by good works wrought from faith, not, as these men imagine, wrought in

mortal sin. 69] And here belongs the example of the Ninevites, Jonah 3, 10, who by their repentance (we

speak of the entire repentance) were reconciled to God, and obtained the favor that their city was not

destroyed.

70] Moreover, the making mention, by the Fathers, of satisfaction, and the framing of canons by the

councils, we have said above, was a matter of church-discipline instituted on account of the example.

Nor did they hold that this discipline is necessary for the remission either of the guilt or of the

punishment. For if some of them made mention of purgatory, they interpret it not as compensation for

eternal punishment [which only Christ makes], not as satisfaction, but as purification of imperfect souls.

Just as Augustine says that venial [daily] offenses are consumed, i.e., distrust towards God and other 71]

similar dispositions are mortified. Now and then the writers transfer the term satisfaction from the rite

itself or spectacle, to signify true mortification. Thus Augustine says: True satisfaction is to cut off the

causes of sin, i.e., to mortify the flesh, likewise to restrain the flesh, not in order that eternal punishments

may be compensated for, but so that the flesh may not allure to sin.

72] Thus concerning restitution, Gregory says that repentance is false if it does not satisfy those whose

property we have taken. For he who still steals does not truly grieve that he has stolen or robbed. For he

is a thief or robber, so long as he is the unjust possessor of the property of another. This civil satisfaction

is necessary, because it is written Eph. 4, 28: Let him that stole, 73] steal no more. Likewise Chrysostom

says: In the heart, contrition; in the mouth, confession; in the work, entire humility. This amounts to

nothing against us. Good works ought to follow repentance; it ought to be repentance, not simulation, but

a change of the entire life for the better.

74] Likewise, the Fathers wrote that it is sufficient if once in life this public or ceremonial penitence

occur, about which the canons concerning satisfactions have been made. Therefore it can be understood

that they held that these canons are not necessary for the remission of sins. For in addition to this

ceremonial penitence, they frequently wish that penitence be rendered otherwise, where canons of

satisfactions were not required.

75] The composers of the Confutation write that the abolition of satisfactions contrary to the plain Gospel

is not to be endured. We, therefore, have thus far shown that these canonical satisfactions, i.e., works not

due, and that are to be performed in order to compensate for punishment, have not 76] the command of

the Gospel. The subject itself shows this. If works of satisfaction are works which are not due, why do

they cite the plain Gospel? For if the Gospel would command that punishments be compensated for by

such works, the works would already be due. But thus they speak in order to impose upon the

inexperienced, and they cite testimonies which speak of works that are due, although they themselves in

their own satisfactions prescribe works that are not due. Yea, in their schools they themselves concede

that satisfactions can be refused without [mortal] sin. Therefore they here write falsely that we are

compelled by the plain Gospel to undertake these canonical satisfactions.

77] But we have already frequently testified that repentance ought to produce good fruits; and what the

good fruits are the [Ten] Cornmandments teach, namely, [truly and from the heart most highly to esteem,

fear, and love God, joyfully to call upon Him in need], prayer, thanksgiving, the confession of the Gospel

[hearing this Word], to teach the Gospel, to obey parents and magistrates, to be faithful to one’s calling,

not to kill, not to retain hatred, but to be forgiving [to be agreeable and kind to one’s neighbor], to give to

the needy, so far as we can according to, our means, not to commit fornication or adultery, but to restrain

and bridle and chastise the flesh, not for a compensation of eternal punishment, but so as not to obey the

devil, or offend the Holy Ghost; likewise, to speak the truth. These fruits have God’s injunction, and

ought to be brought forth for the sake of God’s glory and command; and they have their rewards also.

But that eternal punishments are not remitted except, on account of the compensation rendered by,

certain traditions or by purgatory, Scripture does not teach. 78] Indulgences were formerly remission of

these public observances, so that men should not be excessively burdened. But if, by human authority,

satisfactions and punishments can be remitted, this compensation, therefore, is not necessary by divine

Law; for a divine Law is not annulled by human authority. Furthermore, since the custom has now of

itself become obsolete and the bishops have passed it by in silence, there is no necessity for these

remissions. And yet the name indulgences remained. And just as satisfactions were understood not with

reference to external discipline, but with reference to the compensation of punishment, so indulgences

were incorrectly understood to free souls from purgatory. 79] But the keys have not the power of binding

and loosing except upon earth, according to Matt. 16, 19: Whatsoever, thou shalt bind on earth shall be

bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Although, as we

have said above, the keys have not the power to impose penalties, or to institute rites of worship, but only

the command to remit sins to those who are converted, and to convict and excommunicate those who are

unwilling to be converted. For just as to loose signifies to remit sins, so to bind signifies not to remit sins.

For Christ speaks of a spiritual kingdom. And the command of God is that the ministers of the Gospel

should absolve those who are converted, according to 2 Cor. 10, 8: The authority which the Lord hath

given us for edification. Therefore 80] the reservation of cases is a secular affair. For it is a reservation of

canonical punishment; it is not a reservation of guilt before God in those who are truly converted.

Therefore the adversaries judge aright when they confess that in the article of death the reservation of

cases ought not to hinder absolution.

81] We have set forth the sum of our doctrine concerning repentance, which we certainly know is godly

and salutary to good minds [and highly necessary]. And if good men will compare our [yea, Christ’s and

His apostles’] doctrine with the very confused discussions of our adversaries, they will perceive that the

adversaries have omitted the doctrine [without which no one can teach or learn anything that is

substantial and Christian] concerning faith justifying and consoling godly hearts. They will also see that

the adversaries invent many things concerning the merits of attrition, concerning the endless enumeration

of offenses, concerning satisfactions; they say things (that touch neither earth nor heaven] agreeing

neither with human nor divine law, and which not even the adversaries themselves can satisfactorily

explain.